Lawfare Daily: The Supreme Court’s Long Shadow with Steve Vladeck and Kate Klonick

Summary

The Lawfare Podcast: “The Supreme Court’s Long Shadow”

With Steve Vladeck and Kate Klonick
May 8, 2026

---

Overview

This episode delves deep into the recent reporting and ongoing debates about the Supreme Court’s use of the “shadow docket” and how it reflects on the Court’s legitimacy, the power dynamics within the federal judiciary, and the shifting relationship between the Court, lower courts, Congress, and the executive. Kate Klonick hosts Steve Vladeck—leading scholar on the Supreme Court’s shadow docket—discussing revelations from the leaked “shadow papers,” the implications for Chief Justice Roberts’s legacy, and broader systemic threats to judicial accountability and the rule of law.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. What is the "Shadow Docket"? (04:35)

• Definition: The term, coined by Will Baude, captures everything the Supreme Court does through short orders rather than the lengthy opinions in argued cases—mainly emergency applications, summary reversals, procedural maneuvers.
• Evolution: The shadow docket became a flashpoint starting with an uptick in summary reversals (2015) but now is defined mainly by a surge in emergency relief requests and unsigned, often unexplained orders.
• Impact: Steve Vladeck highlights how this growing practice avoids typical deliberation or transparency:

  “These applications get super truncated process. They don’t get discussed that much. They don’t get considered that heavily.” — Steve Vladeck (07:32)

2. Lessons from the “Shadow Papers” Leak (West Virginia v. EPA) (06:10)

• Insight into Process: The leaked memos show how quickly and superficially some Supreme Court emergency decisions are made:

  “I don’t find any of the memos to be especially thorough... quick, slap dash, quick, quick one-off reactions.” — Steve Vladeck (07:32)

• Lack of Principle: Chief Justice Roberts’s memo, for example, gave “short shrift” to both the standard of review and the novelty of the relief sought:

  “If you can call a two and a half page memo analysis... it just takes at face value all of the power companies’ claims about irreparable harm.” — Steve Vladeck (11:21)

• Data and Ideology: Kate points out a pattern in the thinness of rationale and differences in treatment depending on the administration:

  “You can just... actually see it. There’s... in these papers, the thinness of the rationale behind it.” — Kate Klonick (13:37)

3. The Debate: Is Roberts to Blame? (15:17)

• Defenses of Roberts: Will Baude defended Roberts, arguing he’s unfairly blamed. Vladeck responds:

  “Just because there are more of these cases doesn’t mean the Court’s behavior is compelled by the inputs... At the very least I can blame John Roberts for not thinking that it’s important for the Court to write [opinions] when it’s going to intervene in these respects.” — Steve Vladeck (16:45)

• Legitimacy and Transparency: The Court’s defenders claim to act as institutionalists, but the lack of explanation undercuts legitimacy:

  “Of course [the Court] does [have to explain itself]. That is the source of its power is... its ability to persuade us—not necessarily that we agree with their principles, but that they have principles.” — Steve Vladeck (18:50)

4. Shifts and Institutional Concerns (20:15)

• Roberts’s Rightward Turn: For a time Roberts dissented with liberal justices on the emergency docket (e.g., Texas abortion, Alabama redistricting), but has since stopped.
• Possible Explanations: Kate raises the issue of personal safety/threats and how it may have affected judicial decision-making. Steve suggests the volume of controversial cases post-Trump is influential:

  “The volume and the politics of the Trump cases are doing some of the work here.” — Steve Vladeck (22:49)

• Cost of Appeasement: Vladeck points out giving too much leeway to the executive for fear of future confrontations undermines the Court and the lower courts:

  “It radically fails to account for the costs of the Court’s behavior.” — Steve Vladeck (23:24)

5. The “Court Against the Courts” (32:41)

• Tension With Lower Courts: Vladeck describes a rift between Supreme Court and lower federal courts—a subject of his forthcoming Harvard Law Review essay:

  “There is one bucket where... courts have been remarkably important in standing up for the rule of law. [And another] where they have been completely ineffective, either because of existing constraints or [Supreme Court] actions.” — Steve Vladeck (34:01)

• Examples:
  • Effectiveness: Courts blocked the Alien Enemies Act, law firm executive orders, etc.
  • Neutering: Spending/funding cut-off cases and Minneapolis litigation—where the Supreme Court’s shadow actions or procedural constraints limited relief for egregious harms.
• Supreme Court Undermining Judiciary: The Supreme Court, instead of defending lower courts from executive attacks, has at times joined in the criticism or undercut them.

6. Systemic Accountability and Prospects for Change (46:34)

• Structural Failure: Both agree the real problem is accountability. The Supreme Court no longer looks over its shoulder at Congress:

  “The court is not accountable and it's never looking over its shoulder.” — Steve Vladeck (46:34)

• Historical Contrast: For the first 200 years, Congress regularly exercised leverage (messing with budget, calendar, etc.)—that’s no longer true.
• Restoring Accountability: Solutions must involve restoring Congressional engagement and demanding institutional transparency—not just focusing on who’s on the bench:

  “Some of this is going to take people not like you and me, but people like the Will Baudes of the world actually saying, hey Supreme Court, maybe you should actually, you know, change your ways a little bit.” — Steve Vladeck (48:00)

• Legitimacy and Process: Kate voices that substantive wins or losses matter less than the long-term legitimacy and principled reasoning of the Court.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “What’s worse than [the Court occasionally disappointing us] is the Court not adhering to any principles other than ‘we can do what we want when we want,’ because that’s not judicial power, that’s political power.”
  — Steve Vladeck (03:43, restated at 51:00)

• On the Roberts memos in the Clean Power Plan shadow papers:

  “It gives the feel that he felt aggrieved by how the Obama administration behaved in the Mercury case and was just going to block the Clean Power Plan no matter what.”
  — Steve Vladeck (12:17)

• On Chief Justice Roberts’s responsibility:

  “The buck stops at John Roberts. He’s the Chief Justice.”
  — Kate Klonick (19:07)

• On the Supreme Court’s role vis-à-vis lower courts:

  “I would have thought that a Supreme Court invested in protecting the judiciary would be doing a hell of a lot more to defend the lower court judges. In fact, it's the opposite.”
  — Steve Vladeck (41:23)

• On the risk of focusing solely on case outcomes:

  “The main problem here is not necessarily when we get a ruling that’s for us or for them... It is the long-term degradation of the system and the institution and the rule... which is ultimately a question of legitimacy of the rule of law.”
  — Kate Klonick (49:00)

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

| Timestamp | Discussion Point | |-----------|------------------------------------------------------------| | 03:01 | Vladeck reframes responsibility for trends in federal courts| | 04:35 | Defining the shadow docket | | 06:10 | The New York Times "shadow papers" leak and its meanings | | 09:04 | Emergency applications’ standards and lack of analysis | | 13:37 | Inconsistent equities balancing and partisan patterns | | 15:17 | Will Baude’s defense of Roberts, and Vladeck’s response | | 20:15 | Roberts’s right turn and judicial safety concerns | | 23:24 | Appeasement, executive empowerment, and lower court disempowerment | | 32:41 | “The Court against the courts”—rift with lower courts | | 36:16 | Question of lower courts’ ability to enforce rulings | | 41:23 | Examples of Supreme Court not backing lower court judges | | 46:34 | Structural problem: lack of accountability for the Supreme Court | | 49:00 | Dangers of institutional degradation / legitimacy | | 51:00 | Final thoughts on the Court’s political vs. judicial power |

---

Final Takeaways

• The Supreme Court's increasing reliance on the shadow docket raises foundational questions about legitimacy, transparency, and the balance of power in the federal judiciary.
• Both systemic trends (congressional abdication, governance by emergency litigation) and choices made by the Roberts Court compound these issues.
• Restoring meaningful interbranch accountability—and requiring the Court to explain itself—are essential for the future of the judiciary and the rule of law.

---

Transcript

[Ad Voice]

We asked you here because we care.

And your car insurance doesn't.

They've raised your rate every year and

you haven't even checked.

[Steve Vladeck]

I thought that was normal.

[Kate Shaw]

A lot of people do. That's why there's Jerry. Jerry pulls up to 20 quotes from top insurers in minutes, shows them side by side, and lets you switch in the app. No jumping sites, no re entering info, no spam calls. It helps you cancel your old policy and keeps checking for better rates.

[Steve Vladeck]

We want better for you.

[Ad Voice]

Jerry does too.

[Kate Shaw]

Don't settle. Visit Jerry AI acast

[Ad Voice]

we all belong outside. We are drawn to nature. It calls to us. Whether it's the recorded sounds of the ocean we doze off to or the succulents that adorn our homes. Nature makes all of our lives richer, calmer, calmer, and frankly, better. Despite all this, we often go about our busy lives removed from it. But the outdoors is closer than we realize. With Alltrails, you can discover trails nearby or trails worth traveling to and explore confidently with offline maps and on trail navigation. Whether you're looking for a laid back walk with family or or something more adventurous to get your heart pumping, AllTrails gives you the tools you need to get out there and find your outside. Download the free app today and make the most of your summer with Alltrails.

[Anna Hickey]

Hi, I'm Anna Hickey, an associate editor of communications at Lawfare, and I work behind the scenes at Lawfare to make sure that the articles and podcasts that we produce are accessible to everybody. But today, I'm stepping out from behind the social media screen to talk to you about something important. Every day I see the effort that goes into producing reliable, independent, nonpartisan analysis. And right now, with so much at stake for democracy and the rule of law, that work is especially important. Policymakers and legal experts rely on us, but Lawfare is an equally vital resource for anyone who cares about the most pressing issues we face, from national security to foreign policy to rule of law. But we can't do this alone. LawFair is a nonprofit, and we keep our content free because we believe that access to quality analysis shouldn't have a paywall. But to keep doing this work, we need your help. If you listen regularly, and if Lawfair has helped you understand the world a little better, please become a member or increase your support. At $10 a month, it really makes a difference. Plus, you'll continue to help us offer all of our content for free to everyone. Thank you for listening, for caring about the things that matter, and for Supporting lawfare.

[Steve Vladeck]

I don't blame any of the justices for how broader shifts in, you know, litigation that I think are mostly Congress's faults have put more pressure on the federal courts writ large. That doesn't mean that the lower courts are getting these cases wrong, such that the justices have to be intervening so often. It doesn't mean that the Court has to, you know, sort of upset the status quo in ways it never had before.

[Kate Shaw]

It's the lawfare podcast and lawfare Live on Substack. I'm Kate Clonick, senior editor of lawfare with Steve Ladak, professor George Chandler, author of the incredibly prolific Substack 1 first, and the new York Times bestselling book the Shadow Docket.

[Steve Vladeck]

Sometimes the Supreme Court will adhere to principles with which we disagree. That's baked into the system. What's worse than that is the Court not adhering to any principles other than we can do what we want when we want, because that's not judicial power. That's political power.

[Kate Shaw]

Today we're talking about the impact of the. The New York Times shadow paper story, the continued omnipresence of the shadow docket and the courts lowercase versus court uppercase in this administration. You didn't coin the term that was Will Bode at University of Chicago, but you certainly have spent more time explaining, like, the shadow docket than maybe anyone alive. So just really quickly, I think we're obligated to do this at the top of the show if you can define it, what it is, kind of what it's for, and kind of how it's being used compared to most of the Court's history, which is effectively what the shadow papers are also about.

[Steve Vladeck]

Yep. So Will Bode coined the term to mean, and I, I agree with his usage, basically everything the Supreme Court does through orders as opposed to through the lengthy, you know, opinions we get in argued cases at the end of the term. So some of that, Kate, is emergency applications. And that's obviously been the flashpoint for much of the conversation about the shadow docket over the last five years, but not all of it. The wrangling in the Louisiana voting rights case about when to issue the judgment. Right. That's on the shadow docket. Justice Alito's mifepristone administrative stays. That's on the shadow docket. When the Court summarily reverses a lower court, you know, just basically the idea was to try to come up with some evocative shorthand to capture all of the really significant rulings the Supreme Court issues that don't get covered the way that the normal rulings do. And, you know, Will coined the term in 2015 in response to a real uptick in a particular type of ruling, the summary reversal, the, the context where the Supreme Court at the certiorari stage is resolving the whole appeal. That was what was in Vogue in 2015. Part of what really shifted not long after that was how much more busy the emergency docket, part of the shadow docket became because we started to see so many more parties asking the justices for emergency relief, and we started to see the court granting it so much more often, following this norm of unsigned, usually unexplained orders to grant such relief.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah. So I think that this is fascinating. We've long wondered kind of what the you we've traced in particular, kind of the genesis of this moment, this switch, and kind of in particular the emergency docket, as you said, like, to this moment in West Virginia versus epa. And you had said previously kind of like, well, we'll know in 75 years when all of the court's papers become available and we'll finally know what happened. And I would like to kind of, as an aside, ask you about, like, what's going on with all of these unprecedented leaks happening at the Supreme Court, which is also like a, a side story. But basically, the impetus for me to ask you on and talk about this is that Jody Cantor and Adam Liptec at the Times reported this leak, like, that centers on seven internal memos that they call the shadow papers around West Virginia versus epa, back and forth between the justices kicking off kind of the shadow docket. And they set aside the partisan reaction to the leak for the moment. Like, kind of like, yeah, you know, like all of that stuff. Why do these memos actually show us what, like, what do these memos actually show us about what the Roberts court arrived at, its current relationship with the, the emergency docket. And there was and we're going to this I'll kind of like, kind of lead into this for the next question. But, like, what, like, what did this tell us about Roberts? I think essentially back at Roberts for

[Steve Vladeck]

a second, because I think that's a longer and messier conversation to say, Kate, is we didn't know a lot about how these papers, you know, how these proceedings, how these applications are processed internally. I wrote a post for one verse, like, a year and a half ago that was basically like, here's what we think we know about how the court handles emergency applications. And most of it was speculation because there's no real Public understanding. And there wasn't before this New York Times story, a lot of public access to any sense of what happens behind the scenes. So I think the first thing to say is before getting into the fight over what was novel about the Clean Power plan cases, just being able to see how quickly the court moved, how like cryptic the justices exchanges were, that it was all done, Kate, on paper, with no in person deliberation. And that really, I mean, I don't find any of the memos to be especially thorough. Right. I mean these are like quick slap dash, quick, quick one off reactions to the emergency application filed by the, you know, the clean Power, the power companies and the states. And so I think the first thing we learn is just a lot of what folks had been suspecting define the Court's internal procedures in these cases. Is true that these, these applications get super truncated process. They don't get discussed that much. They don't get considered that heavily. And I think that probably surprised a lot of people.

[Kate Shaw]

You know, you also like, what's the standard? I mean the standard of review is like, is bizarre here. I mean like it almost feels like there's not like I'm like, I kind of was like having a, like a civil procedure stroke, like watching like, like looking at them like, wait, what? Like he's like quoting from cnn like what? Or like whatever it was, he was like, I'm like something outside the record and like using it as impetus to so like just kind of unpack that for a second.

[Steve Vladeck]

And so I think this gets to the second piece of it. Right. And the second piece of it is one of the striking things to me about the first Roberts memo, which is like the, the initiating memo, the I'm the circuit justice and here's what I think we should do memo is just how much short shrift it gives both, Kate, to what the lawyers would call the standard of review. And I would just say more descriptively to the novelty of what the applicants were asking for. I mean, the full Supreme Court had just started around 2016 to consider these kinds of requests outside the context of death penalty and election cases. But never before had the court blocked a federal rule, like a federal regulation on a nationwide basis while the litigation about it was going on. Right. Well, I mean, early in the litigation I would have thought that would be something that Roberts would have at least acknowledged. He begrudgingly sort of says this is unusual in his second memo in response to Justice Kagan being like, we've never done this before. Right. So that's part of what's missing. You also, you mentioned the standard review. So from a like nerdy lawyer perspective,

[Kate Shaw]

I'm sorry to like get into it with first, like if you're not a lawyer, like follow along in like the show notes.

[Steve Vladeck]

But this is what's most frustrating to me about the analysis, which is, you know, when any court is asked to grant emergency relief, what they're supposed to do, Kate, is they're supposed to balance the equities. Right. That's what, that's the theory. Like you're sort of looking at what are the odds we're going to rule for you on the merits blended with, you know, how much harm is going to happen if we rule for you now versus if we don't.

[Kate Shaw]

Right. It's like a, let's just kind of like let, let's get the gist of this case. Let's get the kind of like the sense of like what the risks are, what the harms are if we don't kind of stay this or if we do stay it. And like. Yeah, and I mean, yeah, it's a, it's a kind of an off the cuff move. It's not supposed to be a thorough way. It's not supposed to be a decision.

[Steve Vladeck]

Well, and what strikes me about Roberts's analysis, if you can call a two and a half page memo analysis right. Is just how much, how short of shrift it gives to the equity. So first it just takes at face value all of the power companies claims about irreparable harm. Even though, Kate, Justice Sotomayor points out there's plenty of reason to not take those claims at face value. By the way, you know, spoiler alert, turns out Sotomayor was right. There's a really interesting piece up on the Yale Journal of Regulation by David Doniger about like how none of those claims turn out to be true. But Kate, even if the power company's claims about irreparable harm were correct, you're supposed to balance the equities, which means you're supposed to say, and on the other side of the equation, we have the harm to the government from having one of its signature policies blocked. We have the harm to the environment from letting these power.

[Kate Shaw]

There's no discussion of the poor environment.

[Steve Vladeck]

And so, you know, what I found really sort of striking was how desultory Roberts's balancing of the equities was. It really did give the feel that like he felt aggrieved by how the Obama administration had behaved in the Mercury case, the earlier case called Michigan vs EPA and was just going to block the Clean Power Plan no matter what. Like, that's, that's the vibe that comes through now. You know, since the reporting by Jody and Adam, we've had concerted efforts by a bunch of the court's defenders, we should say, some of whom clerked for Chief Justice Roberts to try to like, retrofit and backfill justifications for, you know, why the Supreme Court did what it did. And I guess I'll just say, one, it's not what Roberts said. Right. And two, it's really, really hard to reconcile the one sided equities analysis in Roberts memos, Kate, with everything the Supreme Court has done subsequently in cases involving the executive branch, especially during the Trump administration. Right. I mean, we've seen, you alluded to this already. We've seen so many grants of emergency relief to the Trump administration in the last 15 months based largely on the idea that every time the executive branch is stopped from doing what it wants to do, it is irreparably harmed. Why wasn't that also a consideration?

[Kate Shaw]

Why wasn't that also happening with the Biden administration? I mean, that to me, like, I mean, I'm a data person, like the standard of deviations off the mean that that is, is, is like the tell for me. Like, I, you know, I think that there's a lot of hand waving, but you can count that, like, right. You can just, you can actually see it and there's just, and like to then see kind of in these papers the thinness of the rationale behind it. You're like, okay, well if you were, do you this was how thinly you were analyzing this one departure, surely, like, like since then you haven't gotten like much deeper, like on, you know, so, yeah.

[Steve Vladeck]

So that, and if we're so worried about like the harm to the power companies in the clean power plant cases. Right. Why weren't we worried about the harm to the, you know, transgender service members in the, you know, military service member case? Why weren't we worried about the harm to, you know, Department of Education employees in the case about, you know, cutting the department in half? Why we worry about the harm to noncitizens, about being removed to third countries where they might face, you know, torture and other forms of persecution? I mean, is it like part of the problem? I mean, you know, I'm not the data person. You are, but I do think that one of the things a lot of the court's defenders will do as a move, Kate. Right. Is to lift out one or a Couple of cases and say if you just look at this, there's a rationale and I want to push back and say you got to look at the whole data set and then the whole. Across the board.

[Kate Shaw]

That's exactly right.

[Steve Vladeck]

Right. And across the whole data set, you see a court that balances the equities differently way too often, at least apparently based on the partisan or ideological valence of the dispute.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, no, I think that's exactly right. And so that kind of brings me to like, kind of the court's defenders and the. And the non defenders. And so will Bode like author of the term shadow docket clerked for Roberts, as you kind of said, Chicago law professor. You know, he's generally read as a conservative legal scholar, but shortly after the shadow papers came out, he had a slightly kind of interestingly formatted op ed guest essay, Q and A in the Times defending, very vociferously defending Chief Justice Roberts. And I'm like, I'm going to read the headline of the piece because just like that, I saw it when it was like online and they changed the headlines of these things, obviously for SEO. But don't blame Roberts for the shadow docket, which is just like a. Well, you didn't bury the lead. And so he basically argues that the shadow papers, like, define Roberts. Like, you know, that the shadow papers is like this put it, define Robert's legacy, not flatteringly, but he argues that this isn't. We're not reading them correctly and this isn't like how we can take this. And I found it to be kind of, I don't know, I didn't buy it, like, frankly, when I was reading it. And I'm not sure. I think that Roberts is the boogeyman everyone always makes him out to be, or he's slowly becoming kind of in the zeitgeist of tort followers. But I'm just kind of curious to unpack this with you and like, what, what the reaction was.

[Steve Vladeck]

So, I mean, I guess it depends on what we mean when we say don't blame John Roberts for the shadow docket. Right. So in one sense, it is literally correct because, you know, the Supreme Court can't make up cases. Right. People have to actually bring the cases to the court. And you know, Kate, if we peel away all the layers, I do think that there's a lot to be said for the uptick in government by litigation that we've seen across administrations of both parties where because Congress has stopped doing its job, presidents of both parties are left to do more and more governing through executive order. Executive orders are more vulnerable to being challenged in court than statutes are. And that. That's part of the input. But. Right. Just because there are more of these cases doesn't mean the Court's behavior is compelled by the numerator. Right. And doesn't mean the Court's behavior is compelled by the inputs. And so I guess what I would say is I don't blame any of the Justices for how broader shifts in, you know, litigation that I think are mostly Congress's fault have put more pressure on the federal courts writ large. That doesn't mean that the lower courts are getting these cases wrong, such that the Justices have to be intervening so often in. It doesn't mean that the Court has to, you know, sort of upset the status quo in ways it never had Kate, before. And even if you are less persuaded by that, at the very least I can blame John Roberts, right. For not thinking that it's important for the Court to write when it's going to intervene in these respects. I mean, one of the things that's so striking about the Clean Power Plan rulings is that there's nary a word of analysis on either side. It is just a one page order. You know, it seems to me that even if you have normative justifications for intervening earlier than you ever have before and more often than you ever have before, and in ways that seem to be inconsistent with the standards of review, the way that you persuade us that this is justified is by trying to persuade us that this is justified. And what I find so remarkable about the discourse right now is the number of folks who are like, leaning in to defend the idea that the Supreme Court doesn't have to explain itself. Of course it does. That is the source of its power is, you know, is its ability to persuade us not necessarily that we agree with their principles, but that they have principles.

[Kate Shaw]

It's truly like the, it's truly like the defining, the defining legitimacy of the Court. I mean, like, I mean truly and like. And to the point which the Court has said yes. And to, to, you know, a little bit, I'm sorry, like, the buck stops at John Roberts. He's the Chief Justice. Right. And so I do think that there is a certain amount of like, maybe, like, maybe these are not the smoke, maybe these shadow papers are not the smoking gun. And you can't like blame him entirely for like this shadow docket and what it has become, but you can kind of blame him for the shape of the Court as an institution. And he has defended and his, the court's defenders have said, said quite often when the Supreme Court has issued just insanely narrow rulings or gone like in the direction of kind of protecting the executive, that they're trying to basically shore up the power of the court and like, kind of preserve the court as an institution. And so, like, all of this feels like that is the, like, you can't, you can't have it both ways. You can't both say Roberts can't say that he's an institutionalist and then not take, take credit for what the institution has become.

[Steve Vladeck]

So I think that's right. I'll tell you one other thing, which is to give John Roberts sort of one thread of credit here, Kate. There was a run of cases during the Biden administration where the court split 5 to 4 with Roberts in dissent on the emergency docket. So you might remember the Texas abortion case, you know, Roberts was with the Democratic appointees. The Alabama redistricting case. Right. Roberts was dissenting with the Democratic appointees. So there was this period of time where it actually looked like he was trying to signal some frustration and some, you know, exasperation with how the other Republican appointed justices were behaving in these cases. He stopped doing that. And so, you know, I think part of what's striking me about John, I wrote a post for my newsletter last year about, or I guess a year and a half ago now about John Roberts sharp right turn. And there was, I mean, there was this like two or three year period, Kate, where Roberts really had become the median vote and sometimes even not even the median vote, like the justice most likely to vote with the Democratic appointees in these cases. And that stopped. And so it's objectively true that he can't make anyone else do anything. But one, he has a vote which he has stopped using in these respects, and two, he has a bully pulpit. I mean, Roberts does not write a lot of concurring opinions. He could be writing more of them to say, you know, here's why I think we ought to be doing this. Here's why you should be persuaded by what we're doing. And I think the fact that he's not, I think, is hard to reconcile with the image his defenders are trying to portray.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah. So again, just really quickly, like, and then I kind of want to leave Roberts and kind of move on to kind of the bigger question about the courts versus the court. But I do kind of wonder this sharp right turn and I can't remember kind of how you come down in your piece. But I do wonder if part of the sharp right turn is about the threat to justice's safety generally. Like, I think that when people take some type of really abrupt kind of hard line and kind of change directions or like, decide to take a harder line on something, it's because of actually something that, like, changes their mind or makes them think that, like, personally affects them. And I have to think that, like, the amount of threats in the judiciary, not just like the court itself, but like all judges and like, the deaths of a number of judges and the assassinations of a number of judges, had an effect on the court in the last couple of years and had an effect on Roberts in particular. And I'm just curious if you think that that's, like, the right thing or maybe it's something totally different. And I'm like, I'm off base.

[Steve Vladeck]

But, I mean, I don't know. I mean, it has to be true that the sort of volume and the politics of the Trump cases are doing some of the work here. And, you know, I mean, Will Bode made this point himself in a roundtable that he and Kate Shaw and I did last summer where he said there's too much lawlessness for the Supreme Court to stop all of it. Now there's a problem there, which is. Okay, but what about the district courts? Like, why are you stopping the district courts?

[Kate Shaw]

Yes, exactly. Which was. Which is a perfect segue into our next conversation. But keep going.

[Steve Vladeck]

No, and so, so I think, I mean, it really is a thesis of appeasement. And, you know, I think it's worth putting the A word on it, because I think we all have a viscerally negative reaction to the word appeasement because we know why appeasing a bully tends not to work. I'll just say more directly. It radically, and this is consistent with the Clean Power Plan cases, it radically fails to account for the costs of the Court's behavior. So, you know, Roberts may think that granting emergency relief to the Trump administration preserve the court's capital, to pick its battles down the road, but look at what happens in the interim. One, you're empowering the administration. Some of the worst behavior by ICE only started after the Court's intervention in Vasquez Perdoma, the Los Angeles ICE raids case. Two, you are further disempowering the lower courts to stop the administration, which, you know, gets back to the relationship here. But three, Kate, I think also, like, we, the people who watch these cases are not stupid. Right. Is also undermining the court's credibility because we say, right. Why isn't the court doing this so that when those confrontations come, when the head on battles that Roberts is supposedly so worried about reach the court, the court necessarily has less power and the executive branch has more. And I think that's it's naive in a way that I would think would not be so beyond his ability to

[Ad Voice]

understand this episode is brought to you by Bill the intelligent finance platform that helps businesses and accounting firms scale with proven results when you're growing a business, the stakes get higher. You can't afford infrastructure that breaks under pressure. If you care about security, reliability and scale, I want to let you in on a secret. Bill is the foundational software that nearly half a million businesses and 90 of the top 100 US accounting firms use to automate back office workflows, add secure controls to payment processes and scale without increased overhead. With AI powered Accounts Payable automation, Bill erases the busy work from capturing invoices, routing approvals, and processing payments, syncing seamlessly with the top accounting software platforms. So your books are always accurate. But Bill isn't just accounts payable, it supports the full payments workflow. Bill has processed over $1 trillion in transactions, leveraging that expertise to help you manage, move and maximize your finances. So stop the guesswork and start scaling with the proven choice to go to Bill.comProven to talk with a payments expert and get a $250 gift card as a thank you. That's Bill.comProven. terms and conditions apply. See Offer page for details. Deleteme makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Look, it does all the hard work. You give it the information that you want to get rid of from the public domain and it does the job of wiping you and your family's personal information from data broker websites. It isn't just a one time service. Deleteme is always working for you, constantly monitoring and removing the personal information you you don't want on the Internet. The data brokers don't quit. They keep putting stuff about you back where the bad guys can get it. And Delete Me doesn't quit either. It keeps taking it down. And it sends you regular personalized reports showing what information they found, where they found it, and what they removed. That's why the New York Times Wirecutter has named Delete Me their top pick for data removal services. I'm somebody with an online presence. I do a lot of commentary on things. I don't hold back on my opinions. I have people out there who really don't like me. And yet my privacy is important to me. I don't want things that I don't want about myself in public to be made public. I don't want people knowing where I live or knowing what my car's license plate is. They One time somebody defaced my car. I've been a victim of identity theft harassment. And if you haven't, you probably will be at some point, and you probably know someone who has. Delete Me can help. So take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to JoinDeleteMe.com lawfare20 and use the promo code lawfare20 at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com Lawfare20 and enter the code lawfare20 at checkout. That's JoinDeleteMe.com Lawfare 20 code lawfare20.

A Better Help Ad hold on one second. I just need to. What if you had a room where no one interrupts? No notifications, no expectations, just space to talk with BetterHelp Therapy happens in a space that's yours. Visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of online therapy.

Taking care of your eyes shouldn't be a hassle. That's why Warby Parker is a one

[Kate Shaw]

stop shop for all your vision needs.

[Ad Voice]

Our prescription glasses and sunglasses are expertly

[Steve Vladeck]

crafted and unexpectedly affordable.

[Kate Shaw]

Stop by a nearby store or use

[Ad Voice]

our app to virtually try on frames

[Kate Shaw]

and get personalized recommendations.

[Anna Hickey]

Did we mention we offer eye exams

[Ad Voice]

and take vision insurance too, for everything

[Anna Hickey]

you need to see.

[Kate Shaw]

Head to your nearest Warby Parker store or visit warbyparker.com today. That's warbyparker.com marketers.

[Ad Voice]

You know that feeling when your creative clicks, when that social post sends engagement through the roof, when your outside of the box campaign hits ROI positive. When a personalized homepage turns prospects into customers. It's utter marketing bliss. Contentful helps you create tailored omnichannel experiences without working overtime. No stress, no limits, only possibilities. Get the [e-mail]

[Kate Shaw]

yeah, so about a year ago, 15 months ago, 16 months ago, at this point, you know, the second Trump administration moved against universities. It moved against law firms. It moved against federal agencies. Like, I mean, we had hundreds if not thousands of suits filed. Kind of related to that. And there was a small group of kind of. Of law professors. I think, like, it was. Noah Feldman wrote a piece in for Bloomberg that was like, you know, at like a. Harvard was like, trust the court. The courts will hold. I spoke to, like, a few kind of court of appeals justices that I'm like, like, and anonymously. And like, they kind of all. They're like, it'll be okay. The courts will hold. Like, this will kind of like, happen. And I was like, I'm not sure that that is necessarily true. And certainly we saw kind of a, like a. You know, in the. In the early days, there just seemed to be. The DOJ seemed to be so all over the place and not interested in a lot what a lot of the lower courts were saying. We have kind of the D.C. circuit obviously having. And, oh, my God, the. The case that was just. Oh, my. What's his. He's. And everything. The justice that.

[Steve Vladeck]

Judge Boberg.

[Kate Shaw]

Yes, Boberg. Thank you. But, yeah, Judge Boseberg's kind of contempt hearing that just, you know, just like, got, like, sent down the garbage chute. And so, I don't know, like, there we're. I feel like we're like, maybe the courts have stood up and, like, the people who said that were correct. And then, like, I'm just see that there's like, this, like, you know, then they're hitting the shadow docket, and there are reversed and unsigned orders. And I feel like we're watching this rift open up between lower courts and the Supreme Court. So, like, the court's lowercase versus the court uppercase. And I'm. Am. I. Am. I. I don't watch the court the way you do. Not even nearly as close. And so I'm just kind of. This is just my, like, off the cuff, like, armchair thought.

[Steve Vladeck]

So I mean, I am. I'm writing the Harvard Law Review forward for the Supreme Court issue. And congratulations. And the title is the Court against the Courts. Because it's a theme.

[Kate Shaw]

It is.

[Steve Vladeck]

So you stumbled onto it.

[Kate Shaw]

That's so funny.

[Steve Vladeck]

But I guess I would say Kate is. I think two very different things are true. And it's worth explaining how they're both true at the same time. There is one tranche of cases where the courts have been remarkably effective in holding back some of the worst excesses of this administration. The Alien Enemies act has not been used since March 15th of last year.

[Kate Shaw]

I know. I was. That's actually specifically what I was thinking was like, wow, like, when that was getting pushed, that felt so dangerous and.

[Steve Vladeck]

Right. Abrego Garcia is a free man walking around the United States. Right. Like, I mean, so there are sort of a bucket of cases where either with the Supreme Court's help or at least without the Supreme Court's negative intervention. Right. The courts have, I think, really saved us from some of the worst of these policies. You know, the law firm executive orders, the birthright citizenship executive order. Like, these standards have never gone into effect. And had they, things would have gotten worse very quickly.

[Kate Shaw]

Oh, yes.

[Steve Vladeck]

Right. So there is one bucket where I think it is absolutely the case that the courts have been remarkably important in standing up for the rule of law. There's a second bucket where either because of, like, formal constraints, Kate, on the court's power, or because of what the Supreme Court has done, the courts have been sort of kneecapped and neutered. And just to give the biggest umbrella category here is all of the spending and funding cutoff cases where, you know, all of that is illegal. And yet. Right. The. The sort of. The fighting over a statute no one's ever heard of called the Tucker act. And whether those cases should be brought in ordinary district courts or in the specialized court of Federal claims has consumed so much attention because the Court of Federal Claims can't issue preliminary injunctions. And so the illegality of the government's behavior can only be resolved at the end of the case. And, you know, that's because the Supreme Court, in a pair of unsigned and mostly unexplained rulings, sent a bunch of these cases to the Court of Federal Claims. The, you know, sort of immigration detention cases we're seeing right. Where the Supreme Court has sort of left a lot of this alone. I mean, like. So I think there's one bucket of cases where the courts have been remarkably effective. I think there's one where they have been completely ineffective, either because of existing constraints on their authority or because of specific actions the Supreme Court's taken. And my flashpoint for the latter example is Minneapolis. Right. You know, there have been, by my count, I think, 17 or 18 lawsuits filed challenging different features of the government's behavior in and around the Twin Cities. And some of them have had, like, small successes at the margins. None of them have actually produced the kind of systemic relief that I think it was, was needed, especially in January and February. And there are doctrinal reasons why that's been true. There are Supreme Court reasons why that's been true. And so, you know, it really depends, Kate, on how you interface with this administration, whether the courts have been a useful part of the story or not.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, I think that that's. I think that that's exactly right. And I do, you know, there were some things that the question was becoming. Well, if the court rules, the court, will they even listen? Like, will they listen? And, like, let's just take tariffs, for example. Like, they appear to be listening, I think, but they've collected all this money already, and there's no remedy, and there's no type of route or procedure that we have in place to, like, return that money to the correct people or the correct institutions. And so it's kind of like a beside the point type of, like, type of moment. And it's. That, for example, is exactly what a preliminary injunction is for. Like. Right. It's like, it's so that you don't get into this situation where you have. You have all of these laws or all of these executive orders or whatever it might be that have, like, come down and you have harm, you have toothpaste that can't get put back into the tube, even when the justices get to the merits part. And so that's kind of, I don't know, like, what your thoughts are on the tariffs ruling, if that's an example of this or not.

[Steve Vladeck]

So I think the tariffs case is probably at the sort of decent end of the spectrum for this because I think it's reflected less bad behavior by the administration and more sort of shyness by the courts. Now, I want to elaborate on that, but there's a great article by Leah Littman and Dan Deacon in the Duke Law Journal called legalistic non compliance, which really does get into this, which is how the administration oftentimes is not defying these court orders, but is sort of not complying with them either. So there are bad. I mean, there are flashpoint examples in the district courts of overt noncompliance and overt defiance. I mean, that's happening in a lot of the immigration detention cases, for example. The tariffs case is trickier because I think the real procedural moment that mattered in that case was when the Federal Circuit stayed the Court of International Trade's original ruling striking down the tariffs for the duration of the appeal. I think that was potentially a mistake, but I also think it's revealing that the plaintiffs in both of those cases didn't ask the Supreme Court to vacate that stay. Right. They were sufficiently scared of the Supreme Court's shadow. I didn't even mean that. Right.

[Kate Shaw]

No, but, no, I. But, no, but it's the correct metaphor. I mean, right.

[Steve Vladeck]

That they didn't even ask. And so a lot of folks online say, well, the Supreme Court let the, you know, kept the tariffs in place. No, that's not quite correct. No one asked the Supreme Court to, like, undo the Federal Circuit stay. But the Supreme Court's not like, blameless for that. Like, you know, the reason why the.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, there's a reason why no one appeals. Like.

[Steve Vladeck]

And so, and so this is the tricky part of trying to tell a comprehensive story about the relationship between the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, which is some of the reasons why these cases aren't getting to the Supreme Court as quickly. Aren't, at least directly the Supreme Court's fault. If we take the thousands of immigration detention cases that are out there, part of why those cases have been so slow is because of a really awful statute Congress passed in 1996 that prevents class wide litigation of the nationwide policy shift that ICE has tried to carry out. Right to treat all undocumented immigrants as if they were stopped at the border, even if they've been living here for 40 years. It's not all the Supreme Court's fault, but a lot of it is the Supreme Court's fault. And I think, you know, as we look at the current Supreme Court term, where Trump has already lost the tariffs case, where he already lost the Illinois

[Kate Shaw]

National Guard case, he's gonna lose the birthright citizenship.

[Steve Vladeck]

Right. He's gonna lose the birthright citizenship case, he's gonna lose the Lisa Cook case. Right?

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah.

[Steve Vladeck]

All of these, like, rah, rah.

[Kate Shaw]

They're probably gonna lose Chatry, but who knows?

[Steve Vladeck]

But, right. I mean, I don't think Chatri is like a part of, like, Chatri.

[Kate Shaw]

It's not a part of it, but it's like, but it's, it's symbolic a little bit. But. Yeah.

[Steve Vladeck]

Yep. But like all of the court's cheerleaders are gonna look at that and say, see, Checkmate lives. Right. The court is not in the bag for Trump. And what I want to say is like, the court, it's not that the court has ever been in the bag for Trump. Right. It's that the court is very willing to enable a hell of a lot of executive power, not at the expense of its power, but at the expense of lower court's power.

[Kate Shaw]

And that's the problem, Congress's power, frankly.

[Steve Vladeck]

So, So I mean, the aggrandizement of Congress thing is not that new. I mean, I think we're seeing it on steroids. What I think is really new about the last 15 months is the aggrandizement and the undermining of lower courts, Kate, at the same time as the lower courts are being attacked by the executive branch in ways that we've never seen before. And I would have thought that a Supreme Court invested in protecting the judiciary would be doing a hell of a lot more to defend, you know, the lower court judges in these cases. And in fact, it's the opposite.

[Kate Shaw]

They're.

[Steve Vladeck]

They're going after them.

[Kate Shaw]

Well, I mean, that was one of the reasons I was so shocked. Gobsmacked, really, by Boseberg's, by like, by their kind of their just absolute dismissal of Boasberg's contempt finding. I mean, Boberg is a. I, frankly, like a left, a right of center judge. Very right of center. I mean, I know this is not, you know, I, he's, he's a seasoned player. I mean, like, he's, I mean, he's, you know, this, this is like a small world, a rarefied judges.

[Steve Vladeck]

Judge, like, everyone knows him in D.C. right.

[Kate Shaw]

This is not some guy writing opinions that, like, overly quotes Orwell, frankly, which has, like, been happening a little bit too much for my taste. Like this, you all know that, like, Orwell's not binding precedent. Right. Like, but I take, I take the point. I take the moment. But, like, yeah, I mean, we're, I mean, I was just like, how can you, how can you be so, so not willing to defend one of your own and not only not one of your own, like the judiciary, but one of your own. Like, Boozberg's like, D.C. sir. I mean, he's been around for. He's an OG. So, like, I just kind of, that's, you know, part of my, my question.

[Steve Vladeck]

And it's worth, it's worth putting meat on the bone of what the attacks have been. Right. So President Trump has specifically called for the impeachment of Boasberg, which actually did get Roberts to say something last March. He said, we don't impeach judges, we appeal. Right. Very, very stern comment from the Chief Justice. Right. The attorney. The then Attorney General Bondi filed a frivolous misconduct complaint. Right. Against Boasberg. The Senate Judiciary Committee in January held a hearing on impeaching rogue judges. And their examples were Boasberg and Judge Boardman. Yes. I actually wonder if they have, like, a directory of federal judges and they were next to each other alphabetically. Right. Todd Blanche at the Federal Society National Convention in November. Right. Referred four times in 40 minutes to the war that the Justice Department is in with the lower Federal courts. And he said, come work for me because we're fighting at a war. We're fighting a war, and I need soldiers. And it's just like, this is not normal. And it's not just that they don't have, like, Boasberg's back. It's the Gorsuch concurrence in the NIH case from last August, where he criticizes three different district judges for what he claims was defiance, which is like a stunning word for the Supreme Court to throw at a federal district judge. Defiance of orders that had no explanation. Yeah.

[Kate Shaw]

They weren't even clear, like, what are we doing?

[Steve Vladeck]

So I just, like, the problem with the Supreme Court today is that you have to be a little nuanced and you have to look at the whole field to really, you know, form any, I think, viable, comprehensive view. Right. It's not a court that's in the tank for Trump. It's not a court that is ruling for Republicans in every case, but it is a court that is very invested in its own power. And increasingly, that's come in not just at the expense of Congress, as you say, but at the expense of the lower courts in a context in which there are too many cases for the Supreme Court to do it all itself. I mean, Justice Kavanaugh wrote this remarkable concurrence in the CASA birthright citizenship case last June, where he says, you know, we need a nationally uniform interim answer. That's what these emergency applications are about. And obviously, that national uniform interim answer should come from us, not a random district judge in Boston. Right. Small problem in casa, the court did not actually provide a nationally uniform interim answer to the question of whether the birthright citizenship executive order was legal or not. Like, so they're talking out of both sides of their mouth. And the problem is that you can, you know, take one side of the mouth and find some cases that support it, and you can take the other side of the mouth and find cases that support that.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah. So that's like, kind of my last question, where I kind of want to end, which is, like, is the only constraint on the Roberts Court, the Roberts Court? Like, is that where we are? You know, there is talk of Alito resigning early so that Trump can get in a younger appointee there. You know, every time anything happens, there's talk of reform of the Supreme Court, etc. Etc. Like, I don't know. That really seems to be, like, I don't. I don't think that that's, like, a likely scenario here. You know, so if the Court is the problem. Like let's say, for instance, what is the what? What is the what? Where does that, where does the change, where can we look for the change? Is it the lower courts continuing to kind of like express this? Is it going to come from the executive? Is it empowering Congress? Is there something, if there's a change in political power and majorities that, like, there can be some tying of hands to the mast, maybe we're in a total war scenario. And that's a naive thing to think that we'd want to do anyways. And so I'm just kind of curious what you, what your thoughts are.

[Steve Vladeck]

I guess I said two things. I mean, the first is I think a lot of what we've been talking about, you know, over the last 35 minutes are really symptoms of a broader disease. And the broader disease is not the personnel on the court right now. It's not that there's a 6 to 3 Republican super majority. The problem is that the court is not accountable and it's never looking over its shoulder.

[Kate Shaw]

When was the court ever accountable, Steve?

[Steve Vladeck]

So, I mean, I wrote about this last week in my newsletter. It was actually highly accountable for most of its first 200 years, it was looking over its shoulder at Congress because Congress would do things like mess with its budget, mess with its docket, mess with its calendar. Totally right. Mess with the Justice's pensions as a way of like nudging them literally on or off the court. Congress has stopped doing that as part of the broader, I think, congressional abandonment of, oh, I don't know of anything.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah.

[Steve Vladeck]

But, but what's interesting is some of that actually predates the polarization that I think can be blamed for a lot of where we are at the moment. So the long term story is about restoring the sort of pathways of accountability and restoring the inner branch dynamic where the Court can't do what we want all the time, but at least is some degree about, you know, is to some degree sort of looking over its shoulder when it does stuff in the shorter term. Part of that story is persuading the Court itself that this is a problem and that, you know, sort of continuing to piss on us and tell us it's raining right is not going to redound to its credibility in the long term. And so one of the reasons why, I mean, this all started with the Clean Power plan memo story, one of the reasons why I was so disheartened by the reaction to that story by folks on the right is that some of this is going to take people not like you and me, but people like the will bodes of the world actually saying, hey Supreme Court, maybe you should actually, you know, change your ways a little bit. Right? Like maybe you should be listening to some of these criticisms. Maybe you should be responding, maybe you should be writing more. And we're in a time, Kate, where folks are so like knee jerkingly sort of either defending or attacking the court that I think the first step has to be disaggregating the results from the process. Right. And explaining why there's institutionally problematic behavior that I think isn't even about the results and could be fixed without changing the results dramatically.

[Kate Shaw]

I couldn't agree with that. That take more. I think that like the steps forward are kind of building a stronger Congress out and trying to kind of shore up the like the strength of Congress which is obviously diminished and like in comparison to the executive with recent decisions. But like can be empowered. It's like that is exactly. I think the accountability point that you make is exactly correct. But to your other point, I do think that it is time for like a bit of intellectual honesty and kind of. I also am like the main problem here is not necessarily when we get a ruling that's like for us versus for them or a ruling that we agree with or we like or something else. It is the long term degradation of the system and the institution and the rule, like, which is ultimately kind of a question of legitimacy of the rule of law. And that is kind of the long term, like that is kind of the thing that sends chills down my spine much, much more frankly than like something like a decision that I was like, like you know, heartbroken over like Dobbs or something like that. Right. And so like that's my personal priors, that's my how I feel like Roe was never particularly well reasoned. We always knew that this was like a day on the horizon, whatever. But like what I want is transparency and well, reasoning and like all this other type of stuff. Stuff. And like I'm willing to let my darlings go to like to, to lose on like something that I'm subjectively like, you know, invested in. If it's for procedural reasons, if it's for following the rule of law. And I think that that is something that I would like to see a little bit more adherence for PR to principle. I'm not too, not to like lecture but like this is just kind of like moments.

[Steve Vladeck]

I mean it's back to where I started. Like, you know, we live in a pluralistic society, right? Having, having a Supreme Court with the power to serve as a check on tyrannies of the majority, something that, you know, we have plenty of evidence over the last 15 months, is actually really important. The the cost of that is that sometimes the Supreme Court will adhere to principles with which we disagree. That's baked into the system. What's worse than that is the Court not adhering to any principles other than we can do what we want when we want. Because that's not judicial power, that's political power.

[Kate Shaw]

Yeah, I totally agree. I guess we'll leave it there. Steve Vladek, thank you so much for having coffee with me this morning. This was like a really intellectually invigorating start to my day. I don't dabble in Supreme Court, probably one tenth of the amount that you do. And so this was like a joy to kind of exercise this part of my brain and like some of my intuitions around what's happening and hear from someone smart about what I should be thinking. And yes, subscribe to Steve's substack and newsletter and well, look for his forthcoming Forward in the Harvard Law Review. Thank you all for coming. And that is it for Lawfare Live on substack. The Lawfare Podcast is produced by the Lawfare Institute. If you want to support the show

[Ad Voice]

and listen ad free, you can become

[Kate Shaw]

a Lawfare material supporter at Lawfare Media. Supporters also get access to special events and other bonus content we don't share anywhere else. If you enjoyed the podcast, please rate and review us wherever you listen. It really does help. And be sure to check out our other shows, Scaling Laws, Rational Security, Allies, the Aftermath, and Escalation. Our latest lawfare Presents podcast series about the war in Ukraine. You can also find all of our written work at least lawfairmedia.org the podcast is edited by Jen Patya with audio engineering by Kara Shillin of Goat Rodeo. Our theme song is from Alibi Music, and as always, thanks for listening.

[Ad Voice]

Marketers. You know that feeling when your creative clicks, when that social post sends engagement through the roof, when your outside of the box campaign hits ROI positive. When a personalized homepage turns prospects into customers. It's utter marketing bliss. Contentful helps you create tailored omnichannel experiences without working overtime. No stress, no limits, only possibilities. Get the [e-mail].